9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 1424X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he details of EPCG Licence and realised the proceeds thereon. The Revenue undertook investigation at the end of M/s. Print Zone and found that they did not have the manufacturing facility and they were outsourcing the Manufacture of "Exercise Notebooks" from M/S Snehraj Notebook Industries, Ahmedabad. In EPCG License issued to M/s. Print Zone, the name of M/S Snehraj Notebook Industries was not mentioned as supporting manufacturer. In view of these findings, which came to light after investigation at the end of M/s. Print Zone, the show cause notice was issued to the appellant holding that they have contravened the provisions of Section 113(i) of the Customs Act, 1962. After due course, the adjudicating authority has confiscated the goods u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -Hyd.). In this case, it has been held that when the goods are not available for confiscation, they cannot be confiscated and redemption fine cannot be imposed. He submits that the Revenue has no specific evidence to show that the appellant has played any role in the transactions of M/s. Print Zone. Therefore, the impugned order is not legally sustainable and prays that the same may be set aside. 3. The Learned AR reiterates the finds of the adjudicating authority. He submits that the appellant has not shown due diligence in verifying as to whether M/s. Print Zone had that manufacturing capacity or not. The appellants were aware that the goods were being manufactured by M/s. Snehraj Notenook Industries and which were being sent to the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... brought from a place outside India are liable to confiscation if the goods "do not correspond in respect of value or in any other particular with the entry made under this Act." Therefore, if the description of the imported goods given to the customs authorities does not correspond in respect of value or in any other particular including its description as mentioned in the Entry made under the Act, then only they can be said to have been misdeclared and, therefore liable to confiscation. The words "Entry" in the context of the facts of this case meant an Entry made in the Bill of Entry. Therefore, before holding that the goods were misdeclared the authorities were required to come to the conclusion that the imported goods did not correspon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AT were, therefore, clearly in error in holding that by claiming benefit of exemptions under notifications which really did not apply to the imported goods, the appellant had intentionally tried to evade proper payment of customs duty." 6. In respect of confiscation of the goods, we find that the goods are already exported and hence, they are not available physically for confiscation. The ratio of cited case law of G.M.K PRODUCTS PVT.LTD squarely apply to the facts of the present case. Consequently, confiscation of the exported goods is not justified and so also the Redemption fine imposed. As there is not contravention on the part of M/s. Rup Exports, they are not liable to penalty under Section 114 (iii) 114AA & 117 of the Customs Act, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
